W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

Re: [css3-gcpm] Running elements

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:47:40 -0700
To: "Cramer, Dave" <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE71A955.30C72%stearns@adobe.com>
On 10/2/13 8:39 AM, "Cramer, Dave" <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com> wrote:

>On 9/26/13 12:09 PM, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  title { position: running(header), normal }
>>>  @page { @top-center {
>>>    content: element(header) }
>>>  }
>>>
>>> I'm happy to resurrect the feature, though -- it's very useful.
>>> Changing 'position' to take a comma-separated list is a big deal and
>>> there may be better ways to achieve the same.
>>
>>It feels kind of strange to me to be using the 'position' property to get
>>running headers. I think it would be more natural to extend the
>>properties used for regions, which already do a lot of similar things.
>>So, for instance, if the element is to be moved, not copied, then
>>something like this:
>>
>>title { flow-into: header running }
>> @page { @top-center {
>>   flow-from: header;
>>   }
>> }
>>
>>Thus the "running" keyword would mean that the flow repeats on each page
>>(like a header or footer) instead of flowing from page to page (like
>>footnotes might), and that anything else with 'flow-into: header' (with
>>or without the "running" keyword) would replace the existing 'header'
>>flow. You could also add your 'element()' second arguments to
>>'flow-from', like this:
>>
>>   flow-from: header first-except;
>>
>>Those second arguments could be useful even if it wasn't a running flow.
>>
>>Then, for Dave's use case, where the element is to be copied, not moved,
>>we'd use a 'running-copy' keyword, instead of just 'running':
>>
>>title { flow-into: header running-copy }
>>
>>This to me feels right. It leverages what people would already know about
>>flow-into and flow-from, styling with @region or ::region(), etc.
>>
>>I'd like to use '::before' on the margin boxes, to pick up some of the
>>string content ideas (note that the regions draft already allows the
>>'content' keyword in the 'flow-into' value):
>>
>>title {
>>  flow-into: HEADER content running;
>>  counter-increment: header;
>>}
>> @page { @top-center {
>>   flow-from: HEADER;
>>   }
>>@top-center::before {
>>   content: "Chapter " counter(header) ": ";
>>   }
>> }
>>
>>This feels simpler and easier, and more consistent with region syntax,
>>than the current or past gcpm equivalents.
>
>That makes sense to me. And Prince is already using the idea of "flow" to
>move content into margin boxes; I hope they'll update this to use the
>regions syntax (plus the ability to copy a flow).

I agree as well. Using flow-into and flow-from make a lot of sense here.
But I think we should discuss whether running headers are best served by
making a copy of the flow, or by defining fragment containers that display
but do not consume a fragment of flow content, as I've suggested before
[1].

Thanks,

Alan

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jan/0172.html
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 17:48:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 October 2013 17:48:20 UTC